Description

Technology is constantly changing and, in turn, has the capacity to promote widespread social and economic change. For example, as blogger Bob Morris (2012) pointed out, if 3D printing technology becomes available to and accepted by the masses, it could dramatically shift control of consumer production. Everything from lifesaving medicines to high-grade weaponry could theoretically be manufactured by the individual, resulting in a significant economic and social change. Is such technological change desirable or detrimental? Given the potential of technological change to generate economic upheaval, it should be no surprise that this question has garnered attention in the business research community. Theories have been developed to explain the development and diffusion of technological changes; the theory of disruptive technology being among the most influential. Since its introduction by Clayton Christensen in the mid 1990s,

 the theory has raised considerable debate. Topics of debate include what is the definition of disruptive technology, when and why it occurs; and how to predict, survive, or promote it. As the pace of technological change accelerates, business professionals have given increased attention to this field of research and the impact of disruptive technology. To prepare: Consider recent disruptive technologies that have impacted your specialization or professional practice. Find at least one peer-reviewed article related to disruptive technology. By Day 5 of Week 7, post your definition of disruptive technology and an informed opinion on whether you consider disruptive technology to have a primarily positive or negative impact. In line with your argument, identify who it benefits and who it adversely affects. Then, offer the two most important considerations for either surviving or taking advantage of disruptive technology. Use examples from the Learning Resources to support your position. Readings Adner, R., & Snow D. (2010). Old technology responses to new technology threats: Demand heterogeneity and technology retreats.Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1655–1675.Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. The authors explored options for firms that want to continue to produce an older technology that is being replaced by a new technology in the mainstream market. They presented this choice as a viable one for continued business success. The authors identified one short-term survival strategy, known as racing, and two long-term survival strategies, retrenching and relocating. The authors provided examples of companies who have successfully implemented each strategy and outlined potential challenges faced by companies implementing each. This article will be helpful in completing Discussion 2. Carayannopoulos, S. (2009). How technology-based new firms leverage newness and smallness to commercialize disruptive technologies.Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(2), 419–438.Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. The author proposed a theory to explain why new technology companies often succeed at introducing disruptive technologies, despite supposed liabilities. The author illustrated how various characteristics of new technology companies affect their perceived legitimacy and visibility. Then, the author explained how these effects can serve as either an advantage or disadvantage to new firms, depending upon which of four types of disruptive technology they are trying to introduce. This article will be helpful in completing Discussion 2. Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M. (2006). Disruptive innovation for social change.Harvard Business Review,84(12), 94–101.Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. The authors explained how catalytic innovations, which are based on the principles of disruptive innovations, can spur social change by serving the needs of populations that are either overserved or not served at all. They presented detailed examples from the areas of healthcare, education, and economic development. The article closed with tips for would-be investors for identifying catalytic innovations. Dewald, J., & Bowen, F. (2010). Storm clouds and silver linings: Responding to disruptive innovations through cognitive resilience.Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 34(1), 197–218.Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. The authors of the study examined how managers’ perceptions influence their reactions to disruptive innovation. Dewald and Bowen studied how managers’ perceived urgency of a threat and previous experience with risk influences their reaction to disruptive innovation. Based on their results, they provided recommendations to the owners of small incumbent firms for responding to disruptive innovation. Ganguly,

 A., Nilchiani, R., & Farr, J. V. (2011). Identification, classification, and prioritization of risks associated with a disruptive technology process.International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 8(2), 273–293.Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. The authors of this study defined seven stages involved in the introduction of a potentially disruptive technology and the risks associated with each. They aimed to help firms wishing to introduce disruptive technology to develop risk management strategies. They identified stages, categories of risks, and individual risks within those categories. Then, they associated individual risks with various stages and ranked the categories based on criticality. Sood, A., & Tellis, G. J. (2011).Demystifying disruption: 

A new model for understanding and predicting disruptive technologies.Marketing Science, 30(2), 339–354.Demystifying disruption: A new model for understanding and predicting disruptive technologies by Sood, A., & Tellis, G. J. inMarketing Science, 30(2). Copyright 2011 by Institute for Operations Research & the Management Sciences. Reprinted via the Copyright Clearance Center by permission of the Institute for Operations Research & the Management Sciences. The authors of this study challenged many of the assertions put forth in Clayton Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation. These challenges included claims about who is more likely to cause disruptions with new technologies, who is likely to introduce certain types of disruptive technologies, what is the price of disruptive technologies, and what is the overall impact of disruptive technology. They modified Christensen’s definition and, through historical data analysis, test seven hypotheses that are based on Christensen’s premises, and they developed a mathematical model to predict disruptive technologies. Yu, D., & Hang, C. C. (2010). A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory.International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 435–452.Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. To provide insight on surviving and introducing disruptive technologies, the authors offered an overview of the literature of disruptive technology. First, they clarified Christensen’s definition of disruptive technology by addressing variations on the theory and common misconceptions. Then, they defended the predictive validity of the theory against criticisms. Finally, in order to provide practical insight, they reviewed literature that examined disruptive technology from organizational, environmental, market-based, and technological perspectives.